Comments on: Exotic Animal Owners Organization Response to Attempts to Curb Private Ownership of Exotic animals. http://www.bloggernews.net/16250 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:54:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: LIsa http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-324439 LIsa Tue, 06 May 2008 06:56:23 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-324439 ' “Even people who don’t own animals should realize that every time a new law is passed, the government powers and bureaucracy grow and our personal freedoms shrink,” warns Kukol." Blah, Blah and more Blah! Get over it, where the issue is safety you had better expect laws to be in place. Why do you think that America is such a great place to live in the first place? We have structure, we have rules, we have a system, and we care for everyone in our society, including our wildlife, that's what makes our country so valuable. Freedom does not mean free will to do whatever you want. It means, that every effort will be made to see that every man, woman, child, disable person, of every color, race, gender and ethnicity is treated with fairness and is protected. We cannot ensure safety without rules and regulations. Look at Iraq. Too much freedom, is not a good thing. We need these laws to protect our society/communities, and the many people in it. Animal owners, and the ones who live with the animals, and the animals themselves. And, don't think a wild animal does not have the INSTINCT that they are not "FREE" they know they are in a cage, they know they are sullen, they know that their life is not the way it should be. Why? It's called instinct for a reason. Rights: I believe in freedom in the US. I also believe in keeping things S-A-F-E Have you noticed the No-Smoking signs in front of local businesses? Heck, even entire hospitals inside/out forbid people to smoke. Now, if a smoker is not allowed to let out one fraction of the carbon dioxide that a 4-cylinder automobile omits to PROTECT the public. Why is it, that anyone can own an exotic animal that can spread a deadly disease, or mistake a 2-year-old child for a small pig that is for their snack! I am deeply concerned for the safety of the public, and I do hope that the legislation in Ohio will ban private ownership of tigers, lions and panthers before it's too late. I agree with you Gabrielle on this note: "Gabrielle Collins said, in April 26th, 2007 at 8:59 pm EPOU (Exotic Pet Owners Uniting) supports the responsible ownership of any animals, regardless if they are a beagle, a goldfish, a tiger or a raccoon. The key is responsible ownership. And yes, animals ARE owned by people." Possible Solutions: More regulations Private owners: there should be more laws that would ENFORCE the proper care of the animals and the neighborhoods that the animals are living in. People need to be aware if a pack of lion cubs are moving into their area. Breeders, should have to pay TAXES on the animals they are selling. We need to be aware of where these breeders are/geographically. TO track the progress of the so-called-keeping them privately owned to avoid extinction. ---Lisa Miller Ohio, USA ‘ “Even people who don’t own animals should realize that every time a new law is passed, the government powers and bureaucracy grow and our personal freedoms shrink,” warns Kukol.”
Blah, Blah and more Blah!

Get over it, where the issue is safety you had better expect laws to be in place. Why do you think that America is such a great place to live in the first place? We have structure, we have rules, we have a system, and we care for everyone in our society, including our wildlife, that’s what makes our country so valuable.

Freedom does not mean free will to do whatever you want. It means, that every effort will be made to see that every man, woman, child, disable person, of every color, race, gender and ethnicity is treated with fairness and is protected. We cannot ensure safety without rules and regulations. Look at Iraq. Too much freedom, is not a good thing. We need these laws to protect our society/communities, and the many people in it. Animal owners, and the ones who live with the animals, and the animals themselves.

And, don’t think a wild animal does not have the INSTINCT that they are not “FREE” they know they are in a cage, they know they are sullen, they know that their life is not the way it should be. Why?

It’s called instinct for a reason.

Rights:

I believe in freedom in the US. I also believe in keeping things S-A-F-E

Have you noticed the No-Smoking signs in front of local businesses? Heck, even entire hospitals inside/out forbid people to smoke. Now, if a smoker is not allowed to let out one fraction of the carbon dioxide that a 4-cylinder automobile omits to PROTECT the public.
Why is it, that anyone can own an exotic animal that can spread a deadly disease, or mistake a 2-year-old child for a small pig that is for their snack! I am deeply concerned for the safety of the public, and I do hope that the legislation in Ohio will ban private ownership of tigers, lions and panthers before it’s too late.

I agree with you Gabrielle on this note:
“Gabrielle Collins said, in April 26th, 2007 at 8:59 pm EPOU (Exotic Pet Owners Uniting) supports the responsible ownership of any animals, regardless if they are a beagle, a goldfish, a tiger or a raccoon. The key is responsible ownership. And yes, animals ARE owned by people.”

Possible Solutions:

More regulations

Private owners: there should be more laws that would ENFORCE the proper care of the animals and the neighborhoods that the animals are living in. People need to be aware if a pack of lion cubs are moving into their area.

Breeders, should have to pay TAXES on the animals they are selling.

We need to be aware of where these breeders are/geographically. TO track the progress of the so-called-keeping them privately owned to avoid extinction.

—Lisa Miller
Ohio, USA

]]> By: TomK http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-18131 TomK Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:17:44 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-18131 It's right to keep animals as pets because it works. It’s right to keep animals as pets because it works.

]]> By: TomK http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-18130 TomK Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:16:48 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-18130 People absolutely should and must adopt animals to preserve their species. I'm not willing to give Greg a break on this. If ranches are breeding live animals and allowing a portion of them to be hunted, they are maintaining living populations of those animals. That's all it takes to help them to survive, thus avoiding extinction. If you have a hundred black rhinos on a ranch, twenty babies a year, allow ten rhinos to be hunted, and that pays the bills, then you have a system that works to protect the species. It is only right that those who want to hunt an animal should pay to maintain its species. Keeping pets is a lot better. If animals have rights like humans do, then this is the best implementation of those rights. Humans take the very small risks of keeping those pets. Those animals are well worth the risk when they have the same value as humans, obviously, and humans can best attend to their rights by making them part of the family, just like horses and dogs are. The feel-good stories about humans bonding with animals and having happy times are almost every single bit of the truth. Almost all of the experience is to the good. Caring for someone who is of another species is the best expression of generosity of spirit that I can conceive of. If anything it seems to come too easily. This is because this is what we are and keeping pets is the best expression of what we are. We use our skills to help them live decent lives and they return love and life. Humans are born to do this. Strictly limiting our contact with the real world is wrong, and enjoying the company of the animals and nature is right. People absolutely should and must adopt animals to preserve their species. I’m not willing to give Greg a break on this. If ranches are breeding live animals and allowing a portion of them to be hunted, they are maintaining living populations of those animals. That’s all it takes to help them to survive, thus avoiding extinction. If you have a hundred black rhinos on a ranch, twenty babies a year, allow ten rhinos to be hunted, and that pays the bills, then you have a system that works to protect the species. It is only right that those who want to hunt an animal should pay to maintain its species.

Keeping pets is a lot better. If animals have rights like humans do, then this is the best implementation of those rights. Humans take the very small risks of keeping those pets. Those animals are well worth the risk when they have the same value as humans, obviously, and humans can best attend to their rights by making them part of the family, just like horses and dogs are. The feel-good stories about humans bonding with animals and having happy times are almost every single bit of the truth. Almost all of the experience is to the good.

Caring for someone who is of another species is the best expression of generosity of spirit that I can conceive of. If anything it seems to come too easily. This is because this is what we are and keeping pets is the best expression of what we are. We use our skills to help them live decent lives and they return love and life. Humans are born to do this.

Strictly limiting our contact with the real world is wrong, and enjoying the company of the animals and nature is right.

]]> By: TomK http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-18126 TomK Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:52:28 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-18126 OK, problem explained. Never mind. OK, problem explained. Never mind.

]]> By: TomK http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-18125 TomK Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:52:02 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-18125 Would someone please kindly E-mail me and tell me why my comments do not appear here? I will take this problem to the top. Would someone please kindly E-mail me and tell me why my comments do not appear here? I will take this problem to the top.

]]> By: Amy http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-17796 Amy Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:38:31 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-17796 Mr. Harman's response is animal rights rhetoric when claiming higher morality and comparing it to human slavery is very off center. Humans have had a relationship of use for work, domestication, food, clothing, pets, etc. To attempt to tell others they are wrong for these reasons is to also say we are morally wrong for having a domestic dog or cat also. It is our responsiblility as humans to not let any animal become extinct and commerce has done that for other animals- increased their numbers. If someone chooses to be vegan or vegetarian- that is their right. It is also my right and just as morally correct to eat meat, have pets and wear leather. I see these big black and white animals everyday that aren't indigenous to the US but are in every state. They have killed people. Most of us also have them in our freezers. I believe those with higher moral standards are those that understand the web of life and don't choose to remove themselves from or try to make others do so through legislation that incrementally removes our rights. Animals are not my God and I won't place them above humans. I will continue to keep my dogs and 'other' pets and not be morally wrong in any way. I had a debate with an animal rights activists once over her saying society is morally evolving....look around you, look at our children. Many would strongly disagree and some would even see where they have been brought up out of touch with real life causing many problems. Keeping PETA out of our schools would be a big help but also a big plus would be to teach them about living with the animals and the way life works. It's not a fairy tale existence but a realistic one. If they are taught they have the same value as a rat, dog or tiger....makes for some serious psychological issues. Mr. Harman’s response is animal rights rhetoric when claiming higher morality and comparing it to human slavery is very off center. Humans have had a relationship of use for work, domestication, food, clothing, pets, etc. To attempt to tell others they are wrong for these reasons is to also say we are morally wrong for having a domestic dog or cat also.
It is our responsiblility as humans to not let any animal become extinct and commerce has done that for other animals- increased their numbers. If someone chooses to be vegan or vegetarian- that is their right. It is also my right and just as morally correct to eat meat, have pets and wear leather. I see these big black and white animals everyday that aren’t indigenous to the US but are in every state. They have killed people. Most of us also have them in our freezers.
I believe those with higher moral standards are those that understand the web of life and don’t choose to remove themselves from or try to make others do so through legislation that incrementally removes our rights.
Animals are not my God and I won’t place them above humans. I will continue to keep my dogs and ‘other’ pets and not be morally wrong in any way. I had a debate with an animal rights activists once over her saying society is morally evolving….look around you, look at our children. Many would strongly disagree and some would even see where they have been brought up out of touch with real life causing many problems. Keeping PETA out of our schools would be a big help but also a big plus would be to teach them about living with the animals and the way life works. It’s not a fairy tale existence but a realistic one. If they are taught they have the same value as a rat, dog or tiger….makes for some serious psychological issues.

]]> By: timbalionguy http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-17654 timbalionguy Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:31:40 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-17654 First of alll, the concept of 'wild habitat' for many of these animals, especially the top predators, is rapidly becoming a nascent one. Unstoppable selfish human ambition will ensure we cannot push back the vanguard for development. We can't even stop it here in the city I live in, let alone in the third world where most of this habitat is. Captive husbandry isn't only necessary. it's the last resort for many species. Any laws passed to curb or ban ownership of these animals is one step closer to extinction. As far as as captivity being a sterile place, it is simply not true. If you spend any amount of time with properly housed big cats, you will find they rarely test the fence. They consider their habitat to be a 'safe place'. Yes, they enjoy hunting, but would rathe their food be brought to them dead. Hunting is replaced by play with other cats or their keepers. And as far as not being 'normal' in terms of relationships, the big cats especially tend to love the people that care for them. In one case in particular, a cat once chose me to be it's 'personal keeper', an honor he bestowed on just one other pserson. As such we had an espacially deep and meaningful bond. This bond was somthing that strengthened and sustained each of us-- In a sense, the cat 'tamed' me and not the other way around. Unfortunately, my cat friend recently died. But so deep was our friendship that he would not take his eyes off of me even as he was taking his last breath. Deep bonds like this are the rule and not the exception with big cats, and every single one has a keeper or keepers that they 'own'. It is very hard to call this unnatural-- In fact, bonds like this with a magnificent animal, even in captivity, are the most basic and natural thing we as human beings can experience. IMHO, we would all be better people if we shared a bond with a magnificent big cat! First of alll, the concept of ‘wild habitat’ for many of these animals, especially the top predators, is rapidly becoming a nascent one. Unstoppable selfish human ambition will ensure we cannot push back the vanguard for development. We can’t even stop it here in the city I live in, let alone in the third world where most of this habitat is. Captive husbandry isn’t only necessary. it’s the last resort for many species. Any laws passed to curb or ban ownership of these animals is one step closer to extinction.

As far as as captivity being a sterile place, it is simply not true. If you spend any amount of time with properly housed big cats, you will find they rarely test the fence. They consider their habitat to be a ’safe place’. Yes, they enjoy hunting, but would rathe their food be brought to them dead. Hunting is replaced by play with other cats or their keepers. And as far as not being ‘normal’ in terms of relationships, the big cats especially tend to love the people that care for them. In one case in particular, a cat once chose me to be it’s ‘personal keeper’, an honor he bestowed on just one other pserson. As such we had an espacially deep and meaningful bond. This bond was somthing that strengthened and sustained each of us– In a sense, the cat ‘tamed’ me and not the other way around. Unfortunately, my cat friend recently died. But so deep was our friendship that he would not take his eyes off of me even as he was taking his last breath. Deep bonds like this are the rule and not the exception with big cats, and every single one has a keeper or keepers that they ‘own’. It is very hard to call this unnatural– In fact, bonds like this with a magnificent animal, even in captivity, are the most basic and natural thing we as human beings can experience. IMHO, we would all be better people if we shared a bond with a magnificent big cat!

]]> By: Gabrielle Collins http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-17594 Gabrielle Collins Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:59:07 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-17594 EPOU (Exotic Pet Owners Uniting) supports the responsible ownership of any animals, regardless if they are a beagle, a goldfish, a tiger or a raccoon. The key is responsible ownership. And yes, animals ARE owned by people - that is why you have to buy them. Your average exotic pet owner loves their animal every bit as much as other people love their cats and dogs and parakeets. It is a fallacy to ascribe human emotions or motives to animals. Yes, animals have emotions - they feel things like affection and fear and happiness too - anyone who has ever owned most any kind of pet knows this. But they do not sit around all day thinking about how they wish they were "free". Animals very much live in the now - from the simplest creatures to the most intelligent and complex ones. Nearly all exotic pets (at least the mammals) are born and raised in captivity, and have no way to process or understand the fact that their ancestors many generations back weren't the same. Animals simply cannot think like that - they cannot think about things they do not know. Animals of all kinds feel safe and secure (and thus happy) when they know what to expect. I honestly believe that most wild animals have very few moments of "happiness", because they are always having to worry about finding food, being someone else's food, shelter, competition, injury, etc. Running through a field or a jungle does not make an animal happy. Feeling safe makes an animal happy. That is what we, as responsible animal owners provide for animals - a safe, healthy, and happy place. EPOU (Exotic Pet Owners Uniting) supports the responsible ownership of any animals, regardless if they are a beagle, a goldfish, a tiger or a raccoon. The key is responsible ownership. And yes, animals ARE owned by people - that is why you have to buy them. Your average exotic pet owner loves their animal every bit as much as other people love their cats and dogs and parakeets. It is a fallacy to ascribe human emotions or motives to animals. Yes, animals have emotions - they feel things like affection and fear and happiness too - anyone who has ever owned most any kind of pet knows this. But they do not sit around all day thinking about how they wish they were “free”. Animals very much live in the now - from the simplest creatures to the most intelligent and complex ones. Nearly all exotic pets (at least the mammals) are born and raised in captivity, and have no way to process or understand the fact that their ancestors many generations back weren’t the same. Animals simply cannot think like that - they cannot think about things they do not know. Animals of all kinds feel safe and secure (and thus happy) when they know what to expect. I honestly believe that most wild animals have very few moments of “happiness”, because they are always having to worry about finding food, being someone else’s food, shelter, competition, injury, etc. Running through a field or a jungle does not make an animal happy. Feeling safe makes an animal happy. That is what we, as responsible animal owners provide for animals - a safe, healthy, and happy place.

]]> By: greg harman http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-17046 greg harman Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:08:56 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16250#comment-17046 i strongly object to this reasoning -- the line of thought that holds that since habitat is disappearing responsible, caring pet owners should be adopting lions for conservation's sake. give me a break. exotic hunting ranches here in texas use the same old line. to my mind, the only just response to disappearing habitat and threatened species is a redoubled effort to save these wild places the world over. you write a lot about the supposed "rights" of human keepers, but nothing about the rights of these animals to live the way millions of years of evolution have designed them to live. do human rights to own these exotic cats come from our own evolution of larger brains and resulting global dominance? one would hope that our evolution will include a moral evolution that rights don't come from might. that we may at some point fall in line with the moral concept that "those who have been given much, much is required." i would suggest that the "more that is required" is a little less self-interest and clamouring for the right to possess and a little more generosity of spirit. animals are personal property, polly britton? wasn't so long ago human animals were personal property, too. The law on the books didn't make it right then and it doesn't make it right now. i strongly object to this reasoning — the line of thought that holds that since habitat is disappearing responsible, caring pet owners should be adopting lions for conservation’s sake. give me a break. exotic hunting ranches here in texas use the same old line. to my mind, the only just response to disappearing habitat and threatened species is a redoubled effort to save these wild places the world over.
you write a lot about the supposed “rights” of human keepers, but nothing about the rights of these animals to live the way millions of years of evolution have designed them to live. do human rights to own these exotic cats come from our own evolution of larger brains and resulting global dominance? one would hope that our evolution will include a moral evolution that rights don’t come from might. that we may at some point fall in line with the moral concept that “those who have been given much, much is required.” i would suggest that the “more that is required” is a little less self-interest and clamouring for the right to possess and a little more generosity of spirit.
animals are personal property, polly britton? wasn’t so long ago human animals were personal property, too. The law on the books didn’t make it right then and it doesn’t make it right now.

]]>